Love?

[Rie]

I am in one of my 'what the hell?' periods and I want to know what love is?
Not sex but love. What is this amorphous feeling that takes so many forms? Do unto others? This is the best I can see it as.:(

[Pope John Pol Pot II]

The older I get the more I realize there are many types of love. Not just for that "love' we flippantly use for how we feel about certain music, foods, or society in general (if we are the humanity lovin' sorts). But I mean even between a man and a woman, there is not just one sort of love. Which is perhaps why pure monogamy in its ideal aspects might be a forlorn hope, since one love evolves into another, and it may be unrealistic to expect that one person has a monogamy on all types at all times.

But I do know that the feeling of being loved is almost always the determinant of a life well-lived and, in its lack, a life most likely wasted. Doesn't necessarily mean that one needs to be loved in the romantic sense, but also as a parent, friend, or relative. I recall a recent health survey that found that besides whether one smokes or doesn't smoke, the most important factor in longevity was whether those surveyed positively answered the question "Do you feel loved?"

People who do not feel loved are rarely fully happy. In the end, human beings have about the same needs as the tamagotchi .

Yes, I know that an emphasis on being loved sounds like a selfish sort of goal in life, but loving people are usually loved by others, so it is not a selfish hope or expectation.

[Garnet]

This is something I wrote in response to the question, "Do you believe in love?" I think it's applicable here.

Believe in love? I would say that we experience love in a variety of ways...in the touch of a lover's fingers, the exasperated scolding of a mother, the hug of a friend, the tears of a family at a funeral or the simple act of helping someone up who has fallen. It can be complex and simple. It can be a towering passion or a giggle in the dark. Love causes a man to go out in the middle of the night, when he feels like death warmed over, to shovel a pathway in the snow for his wife. Love causes people to hold one another up in the worst of times. Love can be as easy as sharing an ice cream cone with a child or as difficult as sitting in a hospital room holding someone's hand while listening to machinery whoosh and beep softly.

[Jobar]

Here's a good simple definition of love, which I find to hold up quite well- "love is when someone else's happiness is necessary for your own."

[Faerie]

Love is being able to spend hours in someone else's company in complete silence and feel comfortable and content.

[sohy]

In addition to what has already been said, I think a large part of love is based on reciprocal altruism. We do things for those we love because we believe they would be willing to do the same for us if the situation was reversed. This is usually true in many different types of love. In fact, perhaps it's a love for one's fellow humans that allows some heroic actions to take place. What else would motivate a human to put his own life at risk to save a stranger? It takes courage as well, but I think part of the reason people do heroic deeds is reciprocal altruism, which is probably the basis for most love.

I think that for long term romantic love to be truly successful, there must be the perception that both parties are equal and both parties are equally participating in the success of the relationship. At least that is what I think has kept my marriage very happy and loving. Of course, if one party becomes disabled, then reciprocal altruism again explains why the other remains dutiful to the disabled party. In my work, I've seen many loving spouses care for their disabled partners. While the favor will never be returned, I think there is the belief that the partner would do the same for them if the situation were reversed. I've also seen partners leave when the other becomes disabled, and I tend to think that these partnerships was probably not that strong prior to the disability. In fact, my clients have told me they were not.

The one negative that I personally see about monogamous relationships is that over the years, loving partners tend to become too dependent on each other for their happiness. The death of a partner can leave the survivor dysfunctional.

[Pope John Pol Pot II]

In addition to what has already been said, I think a large part of love is based on reciprocal altruism. We do things for those we love because we believe they would be willing to do the same for us if the situation was reversed. This is usually true in many different types of love. In fact, perhaps it's a love for one's fellow humans that allows some heroic actions to take place. What else would motivate a human to put his own life at risk to save a stranger? It takes courage as well, but I think part of the reason people do heroic deeds is reciprocal altruism, which is probably the basis for most love.

I think that for long term romantic love to be truly successful, there must be the perception that both parties are equal and both parties are equally participating in the success of the relationship. At least that is what I think has kept my marriage very happy and loving. Of course, if one party becomes disabled, then reciprocal altruism again explains why the other remains dutiful to the disabled party. In my work, I've seen many loving spouses care for their disabled partners. While the favor will never be returned, I think there is the belief that the partner would do the same for them if the situation were reversed. I've also seen partners leave when the other becomes disabled, and I tend to think that these partnerships was probably not that strong prior to the disability. In fact, my clients have told me they were not.

The one negative that I personally see about monogamous relationships is that over the years, loving partners tend to become too dependent on each other for their happiness. The death of a partner can leave the survivor dysfunctional.

Wow, I don't want to get in an argument on a "love thread", but can't agree that this is any sort of workable definition of love, outside of sort of high school expectations.

For example, I do loving things for my kids, but I could care less if they end up reciprocatng in any way at all. Surely I am doing things for them EVEN IF IT IS NOT RECIPROCAL. If I could hop in a time machine, and find out that in 10 years my daughter would not talk to me, my girlfriend would not love me any more, and my father would be dead so could not reciprocate, I WOULD TREAT THEM WITH THE SAME EXACT LOVE AS I DO NOW. I don't think that love has anything at all to do with reciprocity. In fact I am not sure how true altruism could even have the word "recipricol" in front of it.

Even from the standpoint of romantically paired life partners, I can't imagine anything more likely to eventually destroy a relationship than some sort of scorecard of reciprocity. You give love, and hopefully you receive love, but the old measuring cup of reciprocity does not sound like the best guarantor of a long relationship. Hopefully we fall in love with equally caring people, but it is possible to love someone more than they love you, and it could work, even if it is not 100% reciprocal.

If we boil it down to the very unromantic genetic basis to it all: we love because it propogates and preserves our genes. Not only those of our children, but the shared genes of our relatives and our community. That is not a bad thing at all. Our shared genes and shared humanity ensure that most of us will AUTOMATICALLY desire to love and care for those around us even if they give us LITTLE OR NOTHING in return. By fostering those around us, we ensure with our love the propagation of the only real legacy most of us will have- our genes. Depressingly scientific I know, but the expression of that unquestioning and uncalculating care is true magic...

[Goldie]

Dependent...oh yea, but what a trade off! I have 30 years under my belt with my husband. I have been with him since just a couple months before my 17th birthday. I have known him almost twice as long as I knew all 3 of my parents.

I cannot imagine life without him. He's my best friend, my lover and my business partner. While nothing is perfect. I would not give up any of my time with him to make myself non-dependent. A love like ours is definitely worth the price one of us will have to pay later on. Hopefully, we'll go together.

I could write a book on love and not just the kind of love between a man and a woman. Although, I am quite unlucky in certain aspects in my life, I have been very lucky to have loved...and still love many people quite deeply. I am also lucky that the deep love has been returned. I have lost 7 very close loved ones early on in my life and have suffered a lot because of love, but I have NEVER let it make me think twice about loving someone fully and completely. There are no walls around my heart. I have never let loss ruin my ability to love. ...and I am so glad of that. :)

[Godless Dave]

Fucked if I know. My girlfriend seems to expect me to tell her I love her, so I do.


I just broke the guy code, didn't I?

[sohy]

Hi Pope, I don't think the reciprocal part of altruism is usually even conscious. I think it is probably something innate in humans and probably many other animals. There is a lot of evidence for this idea. I'm not trying to convince anyone, however, it's just how I tend to see it.

It's not meant to be at all negative to say that we are motivated by reciprocal altruism. There are plenty of people in the world that seem to lack this trait. As we learn more about how the brain works, we will probably have a better understanding.

I've got to go to work in a minute so I don't have time to find links that might back up my statements. I'm a nurse. I know all about doing things for people without the expectation of any payback, however there is a great emotional reward for doing things for others. That in itself may be part of what motivates us to love.

Anyway, I don't want to argue either, just expressing my opinion. :)

[Eudaimonist]

Here's a good simple definition of love, which I find to hold up quite well- "love is when someone else's happiness is necessary for your own."

This is pretty much my view as well.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Bane]

Here's a good simple definition of love, which I find to hold up quite well- "love is when someone else's happiness is necessary for your own."

Yes, I agree :)